by David Kilpatrick
Bringing America together as one people, getting rid of partisanship, working toward the common good. Electing Obama so that the plant would begin to heal itself...
We elected a community organizer who was careful not to lay out specifics during the election campaign. Let's examine the course we have laid before us:
Helping small businesses:
Small businesses are the spearhead of every economic recovery in the history of the Untied States as they employ roughly 70% of the workforce. What policies has Obama embraced so far?
Cap-and-trade. According to the church of global warming, the sun doesn't play as much of a role in the temperature of the planet as power plants do. So we should raise the price of power to the point that people can't afford to consume as much - ignoring the fact that a prosperous, first-world country is much "cleaner" than an impoverished, third-world one. So, without China or India following suit, we are going to cool the planet alone by going to war against... ourselves. That's right - we're going to prevent those mean-spirited Americans from being able to afford to pollute with their carbon dioxide emissions which plants love. After all, if grandma is cold, she can use a blanket like they do in Serbia! This policy will involve a steep rise in the cost of doing business in the U.S. and it will also increase the burden on small businesses who will have less money to grow, hire, or pay benefits.
Additional taxes. Taking money from the business owner - always a winner because small businesses are like ATM machines in the eyes of folks like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid - three people who have never had to make payroll in their lives. More due in taxes leaves less money to pay or hire new employees - or cover their health care.
Expanding labor unions. Unions have done the country much good in the past. Child labor laws, workplace safety rules, and fairness in wages... but forcing small businesses to open their doors to labor unions will be a death sentence for many. Money doesn't grow on trees and small businesses typically have a strict budget. Simply requiring that two people get the same money that used to hire three won't make Americans richer - it will make more Americans unemployed.
The problem we have in America right now is a government running on steroids - headed by a group of people who have no idea what "unintended consequences" will occur when the Utopian ideas are taken off of the whiteboard and forced upon 250,000,000+ people. It's nice to say, "Free everything for everyone," it's quite another thing to deliver it while promising that only the very rich will have to "contribute". The great speeches and incredible promises of a better society for all are what brought the Soviet Union into being. We should take a breath and learn something from history before we continue down a path from which we cannot return.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
The O is for Overrated
By Richard Baehr
In his campaign for the Presidency, candidate Barack Obama and his minions relied on several key messages:
I am for change (I am not George Bush);
I am the candidate who will break through the racial barrier and show how America (and yes, you the voter) can be part of this noble uplifting effort;
I am young and vigorous but also calm and composed (not like John McCain);
I am a gifted speaker who will inspire you.
Experience, and in particular executive experience, was not much discussed, since Obama had less of both than any candidate for President in history. And Obama also ran from his public voting record and history of associations (Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko) that suggested he would be far more to the left than any President in history. Rather the message was that he would be bi-partisan, moderate, and post-racial.
We have now seen the President and his team in action, and the lack of executive experience seems to be a real drawback. The fiasco with British Prime Minister Brown's visit may reflect more than the President's fatigue after going through all those papers on his desk. The Administration's vetting process for high level positions was weak and many posts remain unfilled, especially at Treasury, arguably the most critical Cabinet Department at the moment. Investors remain baffled as to how the Administration plans to address the banking industry. The President's prior voting record (the most liberal of any Senator's) seems to have been a reliable guide as to how far left the President wants to move the country (as Rahm Emanuel has said: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and in fact offers an opportunity.) On the other hand, Obama remains unflappable, at least on camera.
In one area, Obama as the great communicator, a little bit of the glow is gone. For it turns out that while there is only one O in teleprompter, without this trusted device, we might not have the Big O in the White House (apologies to Oscar Robertson). It is now coming out (though not in the New York Times or Washington Post) two years too late, that underlying the gifted public speaker iconography is a machine. Our President has a dependency, and it is not on tobacco products. The real "jones" is for a teleprompter.
No President is known to have used such a device at press conferences before, so that his staff could funnel facts and figures to him ("my, how encyclopedic he is with information!"). No President or Presidential candidate has ever been as inseparable from the device every time he makes a speech. Barack Obama's rhetorical gifts, which delivered chills up Chris Matthews' leg, and inspired Joe Klein to paroxysms of delight during his recent address to a joint session of Congress, appears to be the ability to "deliver" a speech, written by others and printed out for him to read. For a few months, what registered as newsworthy for the legions of Obama media flacks, was whether he would get to keep his cherished blackberry in the White House. But it was always, it seems, the teleprompter that really ruled.
In but seven short weeks, the aura of greatness (if not transcendence) has all but withered away from our new President, due to the continued and it appears, worsening economic and financial turmoil. The President can continue to start every sentence with we "inherited" this or that problem from the prior administration, or repeat the mantra of the "failed policies" of the last 8 years, but in 7 weeks since his Inauguration, the nation has shed well over a million jobs. Americans who lose their jobs, are less interested in a blame game and much more in solutions that work, and get them back to work. Similarly, stoking a populist zeal to strike back at the evil Wall Street financial crowd may serve for a period of time to divert attention from the success or failure of Obama's own programs, but if all the bailouts and stimuli don't succeed in reversing the economic decline, it is the present administration that will have to answer for its failures.
Since his election on November 4th, an event we were told that would inspire Americans with hope for change (better times), more than 2.5 million jobs have been lost. The President's words, whether read (almost all the time) or delivered extemporaneously (very rare) seem to have done nothing to inspire the confidence needed for businesses and consumers to change behavior and begin to stem the job losses. In fact it can be argued that by talking down the American economy for two years (even while it was still growing) and creating fear, Obama and other Democratic contenders for the Oval office, may have helped turn many Americans from free spenders to very cautious savers. That is not helping car sales, home sales, retail sales or business inventory levels. It is why GDP is shrinking so rapidly. But all that depressing talk undoubtedly helped get Obama elected and Democrats to expand their control of the House and Senate.
Economists consider Obama a dismal failure so far. They think even worse of his tax cheating Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whose Department is so undermanned, it fails to answer the phone at times. Economists give far higher grades to the performance of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who if memory serves, was appointed by former President George W. Bush.
The stock market, which bets on futures, has dropped more than 15% in 50 days of the Obama administration (it is down 25% since his Election Day victory). The Obama administration's record of wealth destruction is far beyond that of any other President in his first 50 days. Forget the Lincoln and FDR comparisons. The market rallied nearly 80% in the first 7 weeks under FDR, and is down 16% (even counting Tuesday's big rally) in the first 50 days under President Obama. This is a comparison of inspiration versus desperation.
We have had a frenetic pace in the first months of the new administration. The Obama media machine has broadcast its success in early passage of the $800 billion "stimulus" bill, designed to create or save anywhere from 3 to 4 million jobs (depending on the particular day of the press release). That bill was rushed through Congress, ostensibly because every day lost, was a day when many more American jobs were shed. The reality, it turned out, was that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needed to catch a flight to Rome for a taxpayer-funded Congressional junket. The bill was then left unsigned by President Obama for 4 days, as he flew back for his own junket to Chicago, to shoot some hoops with friends, dine out with the wife, and watch the NBA All Star game.
The signing ceremony and initial release of funds actually waited until Obama could do the honors at a campaign style event in a swing state the next week. At the rate of job losses every day in February, the signing delay occurred while nearly 100,000 more American jobs were shed. So did the bill need to get passed all that quickly or not?
Could a bit more time have been taken, even if inconvenient for both the Speaker and the President, to produce a better bill in Congress -- one focused more on job creation, especially among those groups with high unemployment rates, and less on pet priorities of liberal interest groups, particularly those of teachers' unions, environmental groups, and those who favor more health care spending?
The same hypocrisy is associated with the President's (no ceremony for this one) signing of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill on Wednesday. The candidate who promised to scour the budget line by line to eliminate waste, decided that the 8,000 plus earmarks in the Omnibus bill were OK this time. (but maybe not next time). The Congressional appropriators, who raised spending in pretty much all areas from baseline plus 3% to baseline plus 8%, got a pass on that one too from President Obama. After all, what are a few tens of billions of new money to be spent (among friends), that the Treasury does not have?
The President's ten year budget proposals also scored far higher on hype and hypocrisy than reality. The supposed $2 trillion in "savings" come in two major area: tax increases, and counting as savings any reduction in spending in Iraq over the next ten years as compared to the higher spending level in that country in federal fiscal year 2008 ( the year of the surge). Does it make sense to assume a "surge" level of spending for ten years as a baseline?
The President's shills on Capitol Hill, Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag, defended this new budget math with a straight face, only further diminishing them as straight shooters of the new transparency. The projected budget deficit -- falling to "only" $500 billion a year in 2013, and only 3% of GDP in ten years, requires sizable tax increases not only on the affluent, but on energy producers and corporate users from the proposed cap and trade program (who would pass their higher costs on to all consumers), and on 4% per year growth in real GDP, a level not reached on a consistent basis for decades.
If the true deficit turns out to be a trillion dollars a year or much higher for years to come, who will buy all that new government paper: $150 billion a month in new debt for 2009, and $100 billion or more in net new debt each month in the next few years? Will China buy Treasury paper paying 2.8% for 10 years, or 3.5% for 30 years? These rates reflect investors' flight to "quality" (in their wholesale abandonment of stocks), and very relaxed monetary policy since the credit crisis began. Low interest rates are assumed to remain that way in Obama's ten year budget projections, but that too may be unrealistic.
There has been grumbling even among some Democrats that Obama is trying to do too much to soon, and that parts of his program (especially the enormous cap and trade tax) may destroy jobs that his stimulus plan tries to create.
As pointed out in an earlier article, Obama has a lot of political power at the moment, with big majorities in both the House and Senate, and is using it to steamroller through what he and the hard left of the Democratic Party have always wanted. Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Maxine Waters, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders are having their day at the beach.
The President had another campaign style event in another swing state (Ohio) last week that is revealing. On a day when the new jobless numbers were released (651,000 jobs lost in February, unemployment up to 8.1%), Obama jetted off to take credit for saving the jobs of 27 Columbus, Ohio police recruits, whose pay (for only one year, it turns out) will come from stimulus funds. If the February pace holds, the economy would have shed almost 1,000 times as many jobs that day as were saved for the police recruits. Is it unfair to mention the carbon footprint of the President jetting to Ohio for this event to celebrate so small an achievement, or the cost of police protection by the local force, whose budget is so strained it needed stimulus money to pay the 27 new members of the force? The campaign event worked to help "win" the daily news cycle for Obama, and enable the ever friendly nightly new anchors to speak both of job losses (Bush's fault) , but also job gains (credit to Obama).
Making the locals pay for Obama public events, is of course, nothing new. In Chicago, the near $ 2 million bill for providing security for Obama's Election night party in Grant Park was never paid by the Obama campaign. A typical victory party in a hotel would have been far less demanding on and costly for the City of Chicago.
The sad reality is that if you are a narcissist in chief, and prefer campaigning to governing, you need to speak before large crowds all the time. Obama has promised to hit the road every week to meet the people of this great country. You can guess in which swing states he will find them. In July, as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, Obama demanded an outdoor event while visiting Germany, and then spoke to 200,000 Germans, assuring them that his victory would mean the oceans would stop rising, and the earth would start healing. He decided to have his nomination acceptance speech outdoors in a football stadium in Denver, with 80,000 on hand, speaking in front of a backdrop of fake Roman columns. Add Grant Park on Election Night to the mega event list.
Oprah Winfrey, whose support for Obama last year might have been critical in his winning the nomination, helping move perhaps a million or more women voters in the primaries and caucuses away from Hillary Clinton and to Obama, was seen leaving the Denver event in August, almost unable to walk, overcome with emotion, and for once, speechless. Speechless will be one word that will never be used to describe our current President. Obama needs to talk, and for crowds to cheer him. As narcissist in chief, Obama, much like Bill Clinton, flourishes in the public setting with the adoring crowd cheering, laying out a stream of fluent prose that he is reading.
In the teleprompter we trust, could be the motto of this Administration.
The jury is still out on whether we can trust Obama to do the job to which he is elected, which involves far more than speechmaking So far, we see more of a permanent campaign than a functioning Executive. If that pattern continues, there will be more Americans over time who will conclude that the O in Obama is for overrated.
Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker. www.americanthinker.com
In his campaign for the Presidency, candidate Barack Obama and his minions relied on several key messages:
I am for change (I am not George Bush);
I am the candidate who will break through the racial barrier and show how America (and yes, you the voter) can be part of this noble uplifting effort;
I am young and vigorous but also calm and composed (not like John McCain);
I am a gifted speaker who will inspire you.
Experience, and in particular executive experience, was not much discussed, since Obama had less of both than any candidate for President in history. And Obama also ran from his public voting record and history of associations (Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko) that suggested he would be far more to the left than any President in history. Rather the message was that he would be bi-partisan, moderate, and post-racial.
We have now seen the President and his team in action, and the lack of executive experience seems to be a real drawback. The fiasco with British Prime Minister Brown's visit may reflect more than the President's fatigue after going through all those papers on his desk. The Administration's vetting process for high level positions was weak and many posts remain unfilled, especially at Treasury, arguably the most critical Cabinet Department at the moment. Investors remain baffled as to how the Administration plans to address the banking industry. The President's prior voting record (the most liberal of any Senator's) seems to have been a reliable guide as to how far left the President wants to move the country (as Rahm Emanuel has said: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and in fact offers an opportunity.) On the other hand, Obama remains unflappable, at least on camera.
In one area, Obama as the great communicator, a little bit of the glow is gone. For it turns out that while there is only one O in teleprompter, without this trusted device, we might not have the Big O in the White House (apologies to Oscar Robertson). It is now coming out (though not in the New York Times or Washington Post) two years too late, that underlying the gifted public speaker iconography is a machine. Our President has a dependency, and it is not on tobacco products. The real "jones" is for a teleprompter.
No President is known to have used such a device at press conferences before, so that his staff could funnel facts and figures to him ("my, how encyclopedic he is with information!"). No President or Presidential candidate has ever been as inseparable from the device every time he makes a speech. Barack Obama's rhetorical gifts, which delivered chills up Chris Matthews' leg, and inspired Joe Klein to paroxysms of delight during his recent address to a joint session of Congress, appears to be the ability to "deliver" a speech, written by others and printed out for him to read. For a few months, what registered as newsworthy for the legions of Obama media flacks, was whether he would get to keep his cherished blackberry in the White House. But it was always, it seems, the teleprompter that really ruled.
In but seven short weeks, the aura of greatness (if not transcendence) has all but withered away from our new President, due to the continued and it appears, worsening economic and financial turmoil. The President can continue to start every sentence with we "inherited" this or that problem from the prior administration, or repeat the mantra of the "failed policies" of the last 8 years, but in 7 weeks since his Inauguration, the nation has shed well over a million jobs. Americans who lose their jobs, are less interested in a blame game and much more in solutions that work, and get them back to work. Similarly, stoking a populist zeal to strike back at the evil Wall Street financial crowd may serve for a period of time to divert attention from the success or failure of Obama's own programs, but if all the bailouts and stimuli don't succeed in reversing the economic decline, it is the present administration that will have to answer for its failures.
Since his election on November 4th, an event we were told that would inspire Americans with hope for change (better times), more than 2.5 million jobs have been lost. The President's words, whether read (almost all the time) or delivered extemporaneously (very rare) seem to have done nothing to inspire the confidence needed for businesses and consumers to change behavior and begin to stem the job losses. In fact it can be argued that by talking down the American economy for two years (even while it was still growing) and creating fear, Obama and other Democratic contenders for the Oval office, may have helped turn many Americans from free spenders to very cautious savers. That is not helping car sales, home sales, retail sales or business inventory levels. It is why GDP is shrinking so rapidly. But all that depressing talk undoubtedly helped get Obama elected and Democrats to expand their control of the House and Senate.
Economists consider Obama a dismal failure so far. They think even worse of his tax cheating Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whose Department is so undermanned, it fails to answer the phone at times. Economists give far higher grades to the performance of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who if memory serves, was appointed by former President George W. Bush.
The stock market, which bets on futures, has dropped more than 15% in 50 days of the Obama administration (it is down 25% since his Election Day victory). The Obama administration's record of wealth destruction is far beyond that of any other President in his first 50 days. Forget the Lincoln and FDR comparisons. The market rallied nearly 80% in the first 7 weeks under FDR, and is down 16% (even counting Tuesday's big rally) in the first 50 days under President Obama. This is a comparison of inspiration versus desperation.
We have had a frenetic pace in the first months of the new administration. The Obama media machine has broadcast its success in early passage of the $800 billion "stimulus" bill, designed to create or save anywhere from 3 to 4 million jobs (depending on the particular day of the press release). That bill was rushed through Congress, ostensibly because every day lost, was a day when many more American jobs were shed. The reality, it turned out, was that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needed to catch a flight to Rome for a taxpayer-funded Congressional junket. The bill was then left unsigned by President Obama for 4 days, as he flew back for his own junket to Chicago, to shoot some hoops with friends, dine out with the wife, and watch the NBA All Star game.
The signing ceremony and initial release of funds actually waited until Obama could do the honors at a campaign style event in a swing state the next week. At the rate of job losses every day in February, the signing delay occurred while nearly 100,000 more American jobs were shed. So did the bill need to get passed all that quickly or not?
Could a bit more time have been taken, even if inconvenient for both the Speaker and the President, to produce a better bill in Congress -- one focused more on job creation, especially among those groups with high unemployment rates, and less on pet priorities of liberal interest groups, particularly those of teachers' unions, environmental groups, and those who favor more health care spending?
The same hypocrisy is associated with the President's (no ceremony for this one) signing of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill on Wednesday. The candidate who promised to scour the budget line by line to eliminate waste, decided that the 8,000 plus earmarks in the Omnibus bill were OK this time. (but maybe not next time). The Congressional appropriators, who raised spending in pretty much all areas from baseline plus 3% to baseline plus 8%, got a pass on that one too from President Obama. After all, what are a few tens of billions of new money to be spent (among friends), that the Treasury does not have?
The President's ten year budget proposals also scored far higher on hype and hypocrisy than reality. The supposed $2 trillion in "savings" come in two major area: tax increases, and counting as savings any reduction in spending in Iraq over the next ten years as compared to the higher spending level in that country in federal fiscal year 2008 ( the year of the surge). Does it make sense to assume a "surge" level of spending for ten years as a baseline?
The President's shills on Capitol Hill, Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag, defended this new budget math with a straight face, only further diminishing them as straight shooters of the new transparency. The projected budget deficit -- falling to "only" $500 billion a year in 2013, and only 3% of GDP in ten years, requires sizable tax increases not only on the affluent, but on energy producers and corporate users from the proposed cap and trade program (who would pass their higher costs on to all consumers), and on 4% per year growth in real GDP, a level not reached on a consistent basis for decades.
If the true deficit turns out to be a trillion dollars a year or much higher for years to come, who will buy all that new government paper: $150 billion a month in new debt for 2009, and $100 billion or more in net new debt each month in the next few years? Will China buy Treasury paper paying 2.8% for 10 years, or 3.5% for 30 years? These rates reflect investors' flight to "quality" (in their wholesale abandonment of stocks), and very relaxed monetary policy since the credit crisis began. Low interest rates are assumed to remain that way in Obama's ten year budget projections, but that too may be unrealistic.
There has been grumbling even among some Democrats that Obama is trying to do too much to soon, and that parts of his program (especially the enormous cap and trade tax) may destroy jobs that his stimulus plan tries to create.
As pointed out in an earlier article, Obama has a lot of political power at the moment, with big majorities in both the House and Senate, and is using it to steamroller through what he and the hard left of the Democratic Party have always wanted. Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Maxine Waters, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders are having their day at the beach.
The President had another campaign style event in another swing state (Ohio) last week that is revealing. On a day when the new jobless numbers were released (651,000 jobs lost in February, unemployment up to 8.1%), Obama jetted off to take credit for saving the jobs of 27 Columbus, Ohio police recruits, whose pay (for only one year, it turns out) will come from stimulus funds. If the February pace holds, the economy would have shed almost 1,000 times as many jobs that day as were saved for the police recruits. Is it unfair to mention the carbon footprint of the President jetting to Ohio for this event to celebrate so small an achievement, or the cost of police protection by the local force, whose budget is so strained it needed stimulus money to pay the 27 new members of the force? The campaign event worked to help "win" the daily news cycle for Obama, and enable the ever friendly nightly new anchors to speak both of job losses (Bush's fault) , but also job gains (credit to Obama).
Making the locals pay for Obama public events, is of course, nothing new. In Chicago, the near $ 2 million bill for providing security for Obama's Election night party in Grant Park was never paid by the Obama campaign. A typical victory party in a hotel would have been far less demanding on and costly for the City of Chicago.
The sad reality is that if you are a narcissist in chief, and prefer campaigning to governing, you need to speak before large crowds all the time. Obama has promised to hit the road every week to meet the people of this great country. You can guess in which swing states he will find them. In July, as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, Obama demanded an outdoor event while visiting Germany, and then spoke to 200,000 Germans, assuring them that his victory would mean the oceans would stop rising, and the earth would start healing. He decided to have his nomination acceptance speech outdoors in a football stadium in Denver, with 80,000 on hand, speaking in front of a backdrop of fake Roman columns. Add Grant Park on Election Night to the mega event list.
Oprah Winfrey, whose support for Obama last year might have been critical in his winning the nomination, helping move perhaps a million or more women voters in the primaries and caucuses away from Hillary Clinton and to Obama, was seen leaving the Denver event in August, almost unable to walk, overcome with emotion, and for once, speechless. Speechless will be one word that will never be used to describe our current President. Obama needs to talk, and for crowds to cheer him. As narcissist in chief, Obama, much like Bill Clinton, flourishes in the public setting with the adoring crowd cheering, laying out a stream of fluent prose that he is reading.
In the teleprompter we trust, could be the motto of this Administration.
The jury is still out on whether we can trust Obama to do the job to which he is elected, which involves far more than speechmaking So far, we see more of a permanent campaign than a functioning Executive. If that pattern continues, there will be more Americans over time who will conclude that the O in Obama is for overrated.
Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker. www.americanthinker.com
Monday, March 2, 2009
Obama Will Sign Spending Bill Despite Earmarks
Associated Press
Monday, March 02, 2009
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects, administration officials said.
Administration budget chief Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel both downplayed the $410 billion spending bill and signaled Obama would hold his nose and sign it. Orszag said: "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward.
Said Emanuel: "That's last year's business."
The House last week passed the measure that would keep the government running through Sept. 30, when the federal budget year ends. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 specially sponsored projects totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion.
Either way, it is far more than Obama promised as a candidate. He refused "earmarks" for the economic stimulus package he championed and a children's health bill.
He similiarly pledged to reject tailored budget requests that let lawmakers send money to their home states. Orszag said Obama would move ahead and overlook the time-tested tradition that lets officials divert millions at a time to pet projects.
"We want to make sure that earmarks are reduced and they're also transparent. We're going to work with the Congress on a set of reforms to achieve those," said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Obama's top hands assigned responsibility to their predecessors and President George W. Bush.
Blaming Bush-era proposals for deficits, Obama wanted to set up his own budget that would start Oct. 1, which he proposed last week with a bold goal of cutting the deficit by half within his four-year term.
"First, this is a $1.7 trillion deficit he inherited. Let's be clear about that. We inherited this deficit and we inherited $4 trillion of new debt," Emanuel said. "That is the facts."
Facts, aides said, would be the cornerstone of the administration's public relations push. Officials faced a tough haul, even as Orszag and others said the proposal would raise taxes on wealthy Americans and increase energy costs.
Emanuel said energy costs are too low, anyway. U.S. car companies relied too long on gas-guzzling autos and failed to invest in alternative energy vehicles, he said. The time for new auto fuels is now, he contended.
"They never invested in both alternative energy cars. They got dependent on big gas guzzlers. ...They have a health care cost structure that's outdated," Emanuel said, repeating the administration's premise that health costs must come under control or else risk breaking all other pieces of the budget.
Republicans were not persuaded. Rep. Eric Cantor, their No. 2 in the House, said Obama was failing on his promises.
"Listen, I mean, the president was elected by the people of this country to institute change in Washington and to finally demand a federal government that is accountable to the people," he said. "The fact that there are 9,000 earmarks in this bill and the fact that the vetting process just doesn't take place the way it should, we ought to stand up and draw the line right now and stop the waste."
Orszag and Cantor appeared on ABC's "This Week." Emanuel spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Monday, March 02, 2009
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects, administration officials said.
Administration budget chief Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel both downplayed the $410 billion spending bill and signaled Obama would hold his nose and sign it. Orszag said: "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward.
Said Emanuel: "That's last year's business."
The House last week passed the measure that would keep the government running through Sept. 30, when the federal budget year ends. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 specially sponsored projects totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion.
Either way, it is far more than Obama promised as a candidate. He refused "earmarks" for the economic stimulus package he championed and a children's health bill.
He similiarly pledged to reject tailored budget requests that let lawmakers send money to their home states. Orszag said Obama would move ahead and overlook the time-tested tradition that lets officials divert millions at a time to pet projects.
"We want to make sure that earmarks are reduced and they're also transparent. We're going to work with the Congress on a set of reforms to achieve those," said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Obama's top hands assigned responsibility to their predecessors and President George W. Bush.
Blaming Bush-era proposals for deficits, Obama wanted to set up his own budget that would start Oct. 1, which he proposed last week with a bold goal of cutting the deficit by half within his four-year term.
"First, this is a $1.7 trillion deficit he inherited. Let's be clear about that. We inherited this deficit and we inherited $4 trillion of new debt," Emanuel said. "That is the facts."
Facts, aides said, would be the cornerstone of the administration's public relations push. Officials faced a tough haul, even as Orszag and others said the proposal would raise taxes on wealthy Americans and increase energy costs.
Emanuel said energy costs are too low, anyway. U.S. car companies relied too long on gas-guzzling autos and failed to invest in alternative energy vehicles, he said. The time for new auto fuels is now, he contended.
"They never invested in both alternative energy cars. They got dependent on big gas guzzlers. ...They have a health care cost structure that's outdated," Emanuel said, repeating the administration's premise that health costs must come under control or else risk breaking all other pieces of the budget.
Republicans were not persuaded. Rep. Eric Cantor, their No. 2 in the House, said Obama was failing on his promises.
"Listen, I mean, the president was elected by the people of this country to institute change in Washington and to finally demand a federal government that is accountable to the people," he said. "The fact that there are 9,000 earmarks in this bill and the fact that the vetting process just doesn't take place the way it should, we ought to stand up and draw the line right now and stop the waste."
Orszag and Cantor appeared on ABC's "This Week." Emanuel spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Iris Data VoIP Services
Iris offers commercial grade VoIP at great rates with all of the features, plus many that other VoIP companies charge for. I have had the opportunity to look at several VoIP companies and compare prices and quality and have determined that nonbody knows VoIP like Iris.
Hosted PBX services comes standard with every VoIP account as does fax-to-email, music-on-hold, customer menus, call routing, voice-mail, three-way calling, call waiting, open-line hunting, call transfer, video phone compatability, web-based account access including call data records and much more.
Iris' VoIP services bring extended families together and can be installed virtually anywhere in the world, and Iris' SIP compliant VoIP devices are completely portable. Many of their customers have relatives overseas who they get to see every day via video phone for no addition to the $19.99 monthly unlimited residential rate.
Businesses also enjoy the service because office that are located in different parts of the world can also be interconnected at no charge and the video conferencing save hundreds if not thousands on airfare, lost time, or miscommunications and in today's competitive world, every advantage counts.
Iris Data also provides VoIP to call centers because of their exceptional quality and low rates as well as WHOLESALE TERMINATION to other major carries throughout the world.
Based in the Pacific Northwest, Iris now makes its' service available to the general public via the internet at www.iriscrystal.com. They call it the "crystal" because the quality is "crystal-clear".
VoIP versatility and Iris' innovation bring savings and reliability that you can count on!
Why not try a line for a week at no charge and see for yourself? Just call 1-866-755-IRIS and ask about promo "TRIAL4" for a week of free service and become a believer in their personal attention and great quality!
Hosted PBX services comes standard with every VoIP account as does fax-to-email, music-on-hold, customer menus, call routing, voice-mail, three-way calling, call waiting, open-line hunting, call transfer, video phone compatability, web-based account access including call data records and much more.
Iris' VoIP services bring extended families together and can be installed virtually anywhere in the world, and Iris' SIP compliant VoIP devices are completely portable. Many of their customers have relatives overseas who they get to see every day via video phone for no addition to the $19.99 monthly unlimited residential rate.
Businesses also enjoy the service because office that are located in different parts of the world can also be interconnected at no charge and the video conferencing save hundreds if not thousands on airfare, lost time, or miscommunications and in today's competitive world, every advantage counts.
Iris Data also provides VoIP to call centers because of their exceptional quality and low rates as well as WHOLESALE TERMINATION to other major carries throughout the world.
Based in the Pacific Northwest, Iris now makes its' service available to the general public via the internet at www.iriscrystal.com. They call it the "crystal" because the quality is "crystal-clear".
VoIP versatility and Iris' innovation bring savings and reliability that you can count on!
Why not try a line for a week at no charge and see for yourself? Just call 1-866-755-IRIS and ask about promo "TRIAL4" for a week of free service and become a believer in their personal attention and great quality!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
An Electorate In The Dark
by David Kilpatrick
Thanks to the fine work of the mainstream media, the American electorate went into the 2008 elections with a fraction of the information needed to make an intelligent decision... and Obama won. Three cheers and a monkey for us!
According to Zogby, 512 Obama voters were asked 12 multiple choice questions regarding the 4 candidates Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, and Sarah Palin and a shocking .5% (that's one half of one percent) aced the quiz. The point of the poll is NOT to say Obama supporters are stupid, but to demonstrate how "in the tank" for Obama the media coverage was in that news unfavorable to Obama was largely not broadcast.
Zogby Results:
42.6% could correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
28.2% could correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing).
17.4% could correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing).
11.6% could correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing).
43.9% could correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
The results, when asked about negative stories of Sarah Palin and John McCain, were startlingly different:
86.3% could identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes.
93.8% could identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter.
86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey, the comedian, who said that!!
Sure, we can point to media bias, after all, journalists voted for Walter Mondale by a 2 to 1 margin over Ronald Reagan (58% to 26%) which was a substantial victory for Reagan as only 9% of journalists identified themselves as Republican. Today, self identified liberals in the media outnumber conservatives by 7 to 1. For anyone to say there is no liberal bias in the media would mean that person is... well... very liberal and the coverage of this last year's election is very revealing in the Zogby poll: The media simply did not educate the public. Do Obama supporters know about Obama's foreign policy ideas? No, but they do know about Palin's wardrobe... as if that has any bearing on how a nation would be governed. We all know about Palin's pregnant daughter, but only 11.6% know that Obama said he will cause energy prices to skyrocket. Which will effect our country more? When your heating bill doubles, will you be thinking about a pregnant teenager? No, but that was all the media reported.
George Washington said, "Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened," in his farewell address on September 19, 1796. Public opinion should be "enlightened" meaning "informed" yet, Americans have fallen victim to malpractice by a media who has failed miserably to surpass anything more than tabloid status.
To help us all:
1. The congress is controlled by Democrats and has been for two years.
2. Joe Biden was the one guilty of plagiarizing a speech.
3. Barack Obama is the one that launched his political career in a confessed terrorist's home.
4. Barack Obama had his opponents removed from the ballot during his first campaign.
5. John McCain could not say how many houses were under his name.
6. Barack Obama said his policies would bankrupt the coal industry and skyrocket energy costs.
7. Sarah Palin was the one whose campaign wardrobe cost $150,000 (that was actually for the entire family).
8. Nobody said they could see Russia from their house. That was a comedian named Tina Fey.
9. Sarah Palin has a pregnant daughter.
10. Joe Biden was the one that said Obama would be tested by our enemies within his first 6 months in office.
11. Barack Obama is the one who claimed to have campaigned in 57 states with one more to go.
12. Barack Obama is the one who said that the government should redistribute wealth.
Now, if you watch CNN and Zogby calls you on the phone, you can help CNN look better than they really are.
We continue to learn all the time, I suppose, but the video is painful to watch.
Thanks to the fine work of the mainstream media, the American electorate went into the 2008 elections with a fraction of the information needed to make an intelligent decision... and Obama won. Three cheers and a monkey for us!
According to Zogby, 512 Obama voters were asked 12 multiple choice questions regarding the 4 candidates Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, and Sarah Palin and a shocking .5% (that's one half of one percent) aced the quiz. The point of the poll is NOT to say Obama supporters are stupid, but to demonstrate how "in the tank" for Obama the media coverage was in that news unfavorable to Obama was largely not broadcast.
Zogby Results:
42.6% could correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
28.2% could correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing).
17.4% could correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing).
11.6% could correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing).
43.9% could correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
The results, when asked about negative stories of Sarah Palin and John McCain, were startlingly different:
86.3% could identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes.
93.8% could identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter.
86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey, the comedian, who said that!!
Sure, we can point to media bias, after all, journalists voted for Walter Mondale by a 2 to 1 margin over Ronald Reagan (58% to 26%) which was a substantial victory for Reagan as only 9% of journalists identified themselves as Republican. Today, self identified liberals in the media outnumber conservatives by 7 to 1. For anyone to say there is no liberal bias in the media would mean that person is... well... very liberal and the coverage of this last year's election is very revealing in the Zogby poll: The media simply did not educate the public. Do Obama supporters know about Obama's foreign policy ideas? No, but they do know about Palin's wardrobe... as if that has any bearing on how a nation would be governed. We all know about Palin's pregnant daughter, but only 11.6% know that Obama said he will cause energy prices to skyrocket. Which will effect our country more? When your heating bill doubles, will you be thinking about a pregnant teenager? No, but that was all the media reported.
George Washington said, "Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened," in his farewell address on September 19, 1796. Public opinion should be "enlightened" meaning "informed" yet, Americans have fallen victim to malpractice by a media who has failed miserably to surpass anything more than tabloid status.
To help us all:
1. The congress is controlled by Democrats and has been for two years.
2. Joe Biden was the one guilty of plagiarizing a speech.
3. Barack Obama is the one that launched his political career in a confessed terrorist's home.
4. Barack Obama had his opponents removed from the ballot during his first campaign.
5. John McCain could not say how many houses were under his name.
6. Barack Obama said his policies would bankrupt the coal industry and skyrocket energy costs.
7. Sarah Palin was the one whose campaign wardrobe cost $150,000 (that was actually for the entire family).
8. Nobody said they could see Russia from their house. That was a comedian named Tina Fey.
9. Sarah Palin has a pregnant daughter.
10. Joe Biden was the one that said Obama would be tested by our enemies within his first 6 months in office.
11. Barack Obama is the one who claimed to have campaigned in 57 states with one more to go.
12. Barack Obama is the one who said that the government should redistribute wealth.
Now, if you watch CNN and Zogby calls you on the phone, you can help CNN look better than they really are.
We continue to learn all the time, I suppose, but the video is painful to watch.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Let Us Pray.
by David Kilpatrick
Let us pray that Obama does NOTHING that he promised he would.
1. Raising taxes on small businesses
Inherently a bad idea as small businesses employ 84% of the population and Obama seems to be completely unaware of a startlingly obvious dynamic in economics: BUSINESSES DON’T PAY TAXES! They simply collect revenue from consumers and pass on taxes to the government. So, the tax increase on the business owner may not be a tax increase on you, but when the cost of goods goes up, you are the one paying the bigger bill. This is also a sure-fire way to ignite inflation… remember President Carter? Inflation was in double digits because the Democrat super-majority in congress and the president didn’t understand that simple dynamic. A tax on business is a tax on everyone, and here’s the part nobody wants to hear: rich people are business owners. Taxing the rich doesn’t hurt the rich… it hurts their customers and employees.
2. Carbon credit trading
Obama readily admits that coal-fired plants will be bankrupted… even clean-burning coal will face heavy levies in the cap-and-trade schemes that will force electricity producers to pay penalties for the carbon emissions of the electricity generation plants, and Obama admits that the price of energy will skyrocket. This will also lend to inflation as higher energy costs effect the prices of all goods sold and the poorest of the poor will be the hardest hit as they will face heating and cooling costs that will be the highest in history. To offset the cost of government regulation on coal, we could turn to nuclear as France and many other nations have, but Obama is against nuclear power. Sadly, this leaves the United States with few options and the U.S. will remain the only country on the planet that is at war with its own energy producing industries.
3. The Fairness Doctrine
Democrats in both the Senate and the House will certainly try to push through the “Fairness Doctrine” which will be the first time in history that commercial broadcasters will have their content regulated by the Federal Government. This is the beginning of “change” that most Americans didn’t bargain for, but it is, unfortunately, part of the package. The Fairness Doctrine will require that broadcasters who air commentators like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity also air opposing commentators, even if those commentators make the station no money. This will cause stations to move away from talk and commentary as “Free Speech” will not be allowed without regulation. This infringement upon such a basic right would likely draw a filibuster by Senate Republicans and would surely be taken before the Supreme Court, but nobody knows what will happen. Again, we can only hope that, for the first time in his career, Obama does not follow the Democrats. The unfortunate pattern though, is that freedoms, in the mind of the far left which now runs the country, only apply to people who think like they do. Remember one thing, my liberal friends: if one person can have their rights taken away today, your rights can be taken away tomorrow.
4. The Employee Free Choice Act
Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers, but the key component in this measure would make private balloting a thing of the past – thus having the exact opposite effect by allowing intimidation from either employers or union thugs and with union membership languishing at around 6% of the work force, the unions who backed Obama’s election see this as a special reward. How does preventing you from having a private ballot help you exercise your free will? With union thugs looking over one shoulder as you vote and employers looking over the other, workers will find themselves in possibly the worst no-win position in history, yet it is part of the new society Obama promises to deliver. An increase in union membership will also result in an increase in labor costs as is proven historically which is bad for the general public and ultimately the workers as it will increase inflation as employers raise prices to cover higher costs and cut jobs in an effort to keep budgets under control.
5. Increasing the Minimum Wage and Indexing it to Inflation
Increasing the minimum wage is always popular because nobody wants to see others working full time and struggling to survive. What is missing is the down-side to this never ending increase-after-increase which actually serves to make the problem of low income survival even worse.
A. To capture the broad sense, we need to take a step back and look at this issue from a global standpoint. Increasing the cost of labor in the U.S. will make our labor even more costly than in other countries, which prevents the export of American goods while increasing outsourcing. Consumers will not buy a $100 stereo made in America when they can buy the same stereo for $20 – made in China. Does this help or hurt manufacturing in the U.S.? Clearly, it hurts it, so fewer jobs become available as prices rise.
B. As labor costs increase, so does overhead for the U.S. companies which will raise prices and reduce the size of their workforce. This will cause a rise in inflation and a rise in unemployment, thus a need to raise taxes to cover unemployment benefits, which will result in higher overhead (again), higher prices (again), more inflation and another round of cut-backs and so on. This is not a cycle that will improve anything economically.
C. With all the concern being on the minimum wage ever being potentially too low, at what point do we ask, “Is the minimum wage too high?” Surely, as it begins the unstoppable upward spiral, a rational person has to realize that unskilled, entry-level positions or positions sought by teenagers to get some experience while they live with Mom and Dad are not worth $20 per hour to have filled and as more and more of the unskilled or young are finding that no positions are available, many will turn to crime or other “under the radar” ways of making money. Clearly not helpful and possibly quite harmful.
D. Increasing the minimum wage also kills initiative. Why would an unskilled worker need to get an education if they can make plenty of money without one? Many of us were traditionally raised knowing that an education was the key to financial stability. If we remove that teaching from the fabric of our society, will we not be teaching our youth that an education is unnecessary? This would make our workforce less educated and further our inability to compete with labor forces in other parts of the world – a very harmful idea.
6. $1 Trillion in new spending
The argument is that “more spending” is the way to solve the economic crisis in the world today and, as Barney Frank (D-Mass) puts it, the deficit should not be considered at this time. The interesting thing to note here is that, for some reason, Obama thinks that government spending is somehow superior to private-sector spending when it comes to jump-starting the economy. If tax rates were kept at current levels or even reduced slightly, as McCain had proposed, private sector spending would be greater than it would be if you raise taxes on business owners and would not need to be supplemented by increased government spending. To say that somehow, our woes would be behind us if only the tax code was tweaked a little bit is naive at best and completely ignorant at worst. Again, let us pray that Obama was only joking about imagining that a tax adjustment is a fix to anything.
As it stands, roughly 18% of the gross domestic product is collected in taxes and amounts to roughly $2.2 trillion. To generate enough tax revenue to support this (even if they claim they don’t have to), tax receipts will need to increase by 50%. This cannot be done by only taxing the rich business owners who (will only pass the higher costs on to the consumers anyway).
Someone is going to have to pay the bill and if it won’t be us, it will be our children… or maybe not. In 1850, Alexander Tyler said, “Democracy is not a permanent form of government. It only lasts until people discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.” – and we’re watching it happen.
Let us pray. Let us pray for the survival of our country.
Let us pray that Obama does NOTHING that he promised he would.
1. Raising taxes on small businesses
Inherently a bad idea as small businesses employ 84% of the population and Obama seems to be completely unaware of a startlingly obvious dynamic in economics: BUSINESSES DON’T PAY TAXES! They simply collect revenue from consumers and pass on taxes to the government. So, the tax increase on the business owner may not be a tax increase on you, but when the cost of goods goes up, you are the one paying the bigger bill. This is also a sure-fire way to ignite inflation… remember President Carter? Inflation was in double digits because the Democrat super-majority in congress and the president didn’t understand that simple dynamic. A tax on business is a tax on everyone, and here’s the part nobody wants to hear: rich people are business owners. Taxing the rich doesn’t hurt the rich… it hurts their customers and employees.
2. Carbon credit trading
Obama readily admits that coal-fired plants will be bankrupted… even clean-burning coal will face heavy levies in the cap-and-trade schemes that will force electricity producers to pay penalties for the carbon emissions of the electricity generation plants, and Obama admits that the price of energy will skyrocket. This will also lend to inflation as higher energy costs effect the prices of all goods sold and the poorest of the poor will be the hardest hit as they will face heating and cooling costs that will be the highest in history. To offset the cost of government regulation on coal, we could turn to nuclear as France and many other nations have, but Obama is against nuclear power. Sadly, this leaves the United States with few options and the U.S. will remain the only country on the planet that is at war with its own energy producing industries.
3. The Fairness Doctrine
Democrats in both the Senate and the House will certainly try to push through the “Fairness Doctrine” which will be the first time in history that commercial broadcasters will have their content regulated by the Federal Government. This is the beginning of “change” that most Americans didn’t bargain for, but it is, unfortunately, part of the package. The Fairness Doctrine will require that broadcasters who air commentators like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity also air opposing commentators, even if those commentators make the station no money. This will cause stations to move away from talk and commentary as “Free Speech” will not be allowed without regulation. This infringement upon such a basic right would likely draw a filibuster by Senate Republicans and would surely be taken before the Supreme Court, but nobody knows what will happen. Again, we can only hope that, for the first time in his career, Obama does not follow the Democrats. The unfortunate pattern though, is that freedoms, in the mind of the far left which now runs the country, only apply to people who think like they do. Remember one thing, my liberal friends: if one person can have their rights taken away today, your rights can be taken away tomorrow.
4. The Employee Free Choice Act
Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers, but the key component in this measure would make private balloting a thing of the past – thus having the exact opposite effect by allowing intimidation from either employers or union thugs and with union membership languishing at around 6% of the work force, the unions who backed Obama’s election see this as a special reward. How does preventing you from having a private ballot help you exercise your free will? With union thugs looking over one shoulder as you vote and employers looking over the other, workers will find themselves in possibly the worst no-win position in history, yet it is part of the new society Obama promises to deliver. An increase in union membership will also result in an increase in labor costs as is proven historically which is bad for the general public and ultimately the workers as it will increase inflation as employers raise prices to cover higher costs and cut jobs in an effort to keep budgets under control.
5. Increasing the Minimum Wage and Indexing it to Inflation
Increasing the minimum wage is always popular because nobody wants to see others working full time and struggling to survive. What is missing is the down-side to this never ending increase-after-increase which actually serves to make the problem of low income survival even worse.
A. To capture the broad sense, we need to take a step back and look at this issue from a global standpoint. Increasing the cost of labor in the U.S. will make our labor even more costly than in other countries, which prevents the export of American goods while increasing outsourcing. Consumers will not buy a $100 stereo made in America when they can buy the same stereo for $20 – made in China. Does this help or hurt manufacturing in the U.S.? Clearly, it hurts it, so fewer jobs become available as prices rise.
B. As labor costs increase, so does overhead for the U.S. companies which will raise prices and reduce the size of their workforce. This will cause a rise in inflation and a rise in unemployment, thus a need to raise taxes to cover unemployment benefits, which will result in higher overhead (again), higher prices (again), more inflation and another round of cut-backs and so on. This is not a cycle that will improve anything economically.
C. With all the concern being on the minimum wage ever being potentially too low, at what point do we ask, “Is the minimum wage too high?” Surely, as it begins the unstoppable upward spiral, a rational person has to realize that unskilled, entry-level positions or positions sought by teenagers to get some experience while they live with Mom and Dad are not worth $20 per hour to have filled and as more and more of the unskilled or young are finding that no positions are available, many will turn to crime or other “under the radar” ways of making money. Clearly not helpful and possibly quite harmful.
D. Increasing the minimum wage also kills initiative. Why would an unskilled worker need to get an education if they can make plenty of money without one? Many of us were traditionally raised knowing that an education was the key to financial stability. If we remove that teaching from the fabric of our society, will we not be teaching our youth that an education is unnecessary? This would make our workforce less educated and further our inability to compete with labor forces in other parts of the world – a very harmful idea.
6. $1 Trillion in new spending
The argument is that “more spending” is the way to solve the economic crisis in the world today and, as Barney Frank (D-Mass) puts it, the deficit should not be considered at this time. The interesting thing to note here is that, for some reason, Obama thinks that government spending is somehow superior to private-sector spending when it comes to jump-starting the economy. If tax rates were kept at current levels or even reduced slightly, as McCain had proposed, private sector spending would be greater than it would be if you raise taxes on business owners and would not need to be supplemented by increased government spending. To say that somehow, our woes would be behind us if only the tax code was tweaked a little bit is naive at best and completely ignorant at worst. Again, let us pray that Obama was only joking about imagining that a tax adjustment is a fix to anything.
As it stands, roughly 18% of the gross domestic product is collected in taxes and amounts to roughly $2.2 trillion. To generate enough tax revenue to support this (even if they claim they don’t have to), tax receipts will need to increase by 50%. This cannot be done by only taxing the rich business owners who (will only pass the higher costs on to the consumers anyway).
Someone is going to have to pay the bill and if it won’t be us, it will be our children… or maybe not. In 1850, Alexander Tyler said, “Democracy is not a permanent form of government. It only lasts until people discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.” – and we’re watching it happen.
Let us pray. Let us pray for the survival of our country.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
